tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN March 24, 2014 10:30pm-12:31am EDT
point of view. that is extremely important. can we be more transparent about how they conduct that activity? i think the answer has been yes. we are certainly trying to be as you heard say it's difficult to do it. the foreign intelligence surveillance court has established a web site which i believe is new for them. they are trying to post opinions there. we are working hard with them to try to find opinions to redact, find ways to redact the opinions and posts them. the intelligence community has established a blog on tumbler which i just learned about recently called icing on the record so you can just google i see on the record and you will find redacted foreign intelligence surveillance court pleadings and we are working hard to put additional matters up there. i can't say that they are self-explanatory. they are written in densely blocks of redact the text. another issue that we have to
think about is not only the need for a person to have clearance and the ability to review things in a manner that preserves the secrecy of sources of methods but also familiarity with how the intelligence community operates. it takes sometimes years of work to really understand why it is certain things are done in a certain way how would we do compares for example with the activities of other countries, how what we do has developed historically over time, how does it compare with law enforcement, why is it different from one enforcement? all of those issues take a lot of focused attention and time to really understand so those are just a couple of practical considerations that i think we are we are going to have to think about. >> judge robertson, judge dates ahead of the administrative office of united states courts wrote a letter to chairman feinstein recently opposing the
creation of a privacy advocate. he said the participation of the privacy advocate is unnecessary and could prove counterproductive in the vast majority of fisa matters and would neither create truly adversarial process nor constructive since the applicant but then unable to communicate with the target or conduct an independent investigation. was it appropriate for judge bates to express these opinions on the pending matters that congress is considering and do you agree with his criticism? >> i am afraid he is a great judge. he was the presiding judge of the fisa court. he is now the director of the administrative office of the u.s. courts in addition to being in article iii judge. he quite a guy and was it appropriate for him to do this? absolutely. in his capacity either as director of the administrative
office he has frankly a direct pipeline to to the chief justice and the chief justice wanted him to do it. he knows as much about fisa as anybody perfectly fine. do i agree with him? actually i agree with a great deal of what he said in that letter. the one place i do not agree with him about or i really decline to engage in this discussion is his idea that it would be counterproductive to bring in a special advocate because as he argues, because then the government might not diaz candid with the court as they now are. i think that's kind have been it in admissible argument. if the suggestion is that if you brought in an outside person into this warm little discussion
group of the government and judges who all trust each other all of a sudden the government backs away and doesn't tell everybody everything. that's not the way i want the governmengovernmen t to act. that's not the way it should act and i just don't agree with it. i don't think there is any evidence for the proposition the government would back off and withhold information either from the court or special advocate so that part of what he said i disagree with. he also is concerned about the timing question. about slowing down the processes of the fisa court. i think senator lowenthal answer that completely to my satisfaction. there is no reason to stop the intelligence process. we are talking about appealing it. i mean surveillance all by
itself doesn't kill anybody. search warrants are issued all the time that are later held not to be appropriate so i'm not worried about the timing issue and i don't agree with him about counterproductive but other than that john bates has most of it write anything. >> thank you for the good words on behalf of judge dates who is indeed a distinguidistingui shed and principled judge. i'm going to ask a follow-up question. as i hear your reasons for resigning from the fisa court the main objection was the meta-data collection program was not being brought to the attention of the court in the first place. since you left the court has been reviewed by the court and the fisa court upheld its constitutconstitut ionality but now the federal district courts are divided on the question. judge leon in washington is denounced the program as of trouble will violation of the force amendment and said james madison would have been aghast at the slow incursion of
liberty. the judge in new york has reached the opposite conclusion saying it is consistent with the fourth amendment because we have no -- judge justice scalia says he thinks the court will hear his case. if you don't feel like opining on that issue imagine the court did strike down the meta-data collectiocollectio n program. what additional reforms do you think would be necessary to make the fisa court consistent with the court? >> well, you are raising a really big question because there are a lot of people who think the fisa court, that we shouldn't have a fisa court at all. the whole process of evaluating what the government is doing in the intelligeintellige nce field can be done perfectly adequately
by existing district and federal and appellate courts. there are confidentiality provisions. there are ways of dealing with confidential issues and we shouldn't have a secret court to do this. it is a star chamber and so forth. i don't feel that way but i do think there is a question of what kind of the court the fisa court really is. is the court in article iii courts because the judges on it are article iii judges? i don't think so. i think it's a special court with special jurisdiction and i have sort of lost track of your question. >> what else has to be done in? if there is no metadata program what other reforms are necessary for the fisa court? >> because if there's no metadata programs there will be another program down the road. i mean the president and the executive branch of the
government have constitutional powers to do intelligence work that doesn't require judicial oversight all the time. as mr. bowman suggested earlier this is a constantly evolving thing in government is not going to stop trying to find out what's going on just because the 215 program is not done. they will try something else. there will be other attempts at intelligence of the fisa court needs to be there to review and approve what is going on in the next evolution after 215. does that answer your question the? >> you are the james madison of the fisa court so if there will be future efforts. the fisa court is still there. are you happy with the fisa court addresses constantly --
constitute structurally or are there additional reforms that would make a consistent with it constitution? >> i continue believe that there should be an adversary opening into the fisa court. we can argue about the details of it but i think i spoke out in favor of an adversary process at the beginning of the pclob process. i absolutely think there has to be a way for third parties amicus curiae i some party to get and make arguments. you know the public, the pclob issued a wrong -- long report on 215 and found it to be not unconstitutional but illegal under the provisions of section 215.
it said section 215 itself is not authorized in the metadata program. that argument to my knowledge was never made to the fisa court and would not have been made to the fisa court but for an adversary and it's an adversary had been there and presented that argument to the fisa court the fisa court might've said wait a minute maybe they are right about that. maybe it is illegal and not on constitutional grounds but on the grounds that it's not permitted by the legislation. the words of section 215. >> that's a strong example. why don't the rest of the panelists begin to judge robertson's challenge. he said an advocate was absolutely unnecessary. if you are devising an advocate what do you think an effective structure would look like? >> i think i would take some of
what the judges said here about having a panel as he put it of lawyers that would be available for this sort of thing only i would not just leave it at that point. i'm very concerned that the fisa court like the rest of us is going to get left in the dirt as technology changes things. whatever panel you have has got to have the ability to put in the experts of whatever the issue is. it's not a one-size-fits-all and different engineers in different types of expertise of cyberissues are going to be needed to come to the court. technology is just not going to stop and we are already seeing the idea form around the country including at the supreme court that surveillance is just getting too easy right now. it's only because of technology
and i think the 215 program is the poster child in this generation of what is needed. i have got to throw in one thing. the concerns of privacy are probably more for you out there that it is for your grandchildren because they post their whole lives on facebook. there's going to be a split in the country but what we have seen right now is a changing view of what is socially appropriate. the 215 program is collecting information that is not constitutionally protected. you have no right in that information but the idea --. >> by the federal district courts. >> they are debating the program, not the content. the information that is there is constitutionally unprotected but by virtue of smith versus maryland. >> i think judge leon disagrees on that point.
a lot of that information will be aggregated. >> individually that information is not protected. that is something i think is going to change because the social appetite of the country seems to be changing based on this program. >> i wanted the other panelists senator blumenthal and his staff are here. you have amendments to the epic of proposal. now we have to seize their opportunity so how would you define it? >> i think i will talk about washington because we have all these people to speak with and there are some really important issues that were raised here. i think it's turned her -- terrific that you are using tom blair and trying to get more information of the public. i will note the majority of documents that have been posted there were already leaked or were forced to have been disclosed through partner organizations such as the aclu and epic so i think we have yet to see proactive disclosure of
things being declassified in posted there. i think it's good for pr though. i think also we have to talk about this closed-circuit. it's not just the court. yes i agree an adversarial proceeding is much needed in this court. yes we need more experts whether it's through a made guy or be able to call special witnesses but making it operates more like a normal court. i'm all for that. how do we remove this closed-circuit because right now in the fisa court how do we bring more experts in, more oversight? how do we bring other branches into the courtroom but also how do we bring the legal decisions being made at the department of justice that lectures the decisions that i've made it the
fisa court out into the public? the legal memos that justify things such as extraordinary rendition, drone strikes and the collection of information about americans communicacommunica tions. those legal decisions are being made, those interpretations are being made either department of justice and then being kept secret so we have got congress passing laws and they are being interpreted in secret by the executive branch and improved in the secret court. so i ask you how is that democratic? how can we hold our elected officials accountable for the loss on our behalf when they are being used in a way that is completely another eyes. >> a good question from your colleague.
>> there are different procedures we have been looking at to try to increase transparency and address those concerns. we understand the need or transparency in a democracy. the countervailing consideration of course is that if you are completely transparent then you have no intelligence service. we have to find a way to balance both because protecting sources is a term we use in the intelligence community is essential in your job to protect the nation and our allies and carrying out these intelligence activities. it's if very careful project. i'm not saying it's happening quickly or overnight. i said another in another context the intelligence community is built, resource designed, trained and focused around secrecy. we tried to obtain the secrets of are adversary singh keep secret how we are doing so in order to be effective with
national security. that is what an intelligeintellige nce service doesn't united states and intelligence from other countries do around the world. that's the nature of intelligence. that said we are democracy so it's important as you said for the american people to understand what we are doing. in the past will we have done of course is provided transparency to oversight to the foreign intelligence surveillance court to congressional oversight committees. we have tried to learn the lessons of people i've mentioned and the senator and mentioned in the church committee hearings. we tried to learn those lessons and try to address. we try to learn additional lessons as we go forward. i will just say in terms of the record had let me just respond briefly on that. it's true that a lot of those documents were the subject of foia litigation but how much redact and what you disclose depends on judgments that are made in terms of how transparent you can afford to be while still protecting the underlying secrets. intimate documents may have been
disclosed without authorization but is still a judgment call as to what you can and should continue to disclose through official channels. those are difficult determinations that are made after a lot of care so the documents that are posted on the record to reflect a forward-leaning attitude that the president has directed the intelligence committee to to take on transparency and are trying to take the best that we can. again it's not perfect and it's going to take time for us to reorient ourselves to be more a lined with transparency. i asked people to be patient. i also asked people to understand that in order to be effective we have to find ways to continue to keep secrets. >> we have a bunch of excellent questions from our extremely informed and thoughtful national constitutional center audience and we are going to jump right
in. there've been several recent request by the press to start a new series the church committee hearings. do we need a church committee and if so what should its jurisdiction be? >> i do not think we need a new church committee. we have to remember this whole thing began with snowden because without snowden we wouldn't be having this discussion and an enormous amount of valuable public discussion has occurred since snowden. i don't know what you think about snowden. i've got my own views about snowden. i don't think he's a hero but i have to admit that what he has done is useful. that is it has been useful for the country. a new church committee, i don't
think there's any evidence for the proposition that we have a rogue cia or a rogue fbi or anything of the sort. i always respond telling telling people when i went to the fisa court in the first place i went there to find out what our intelligence community was up to because i wasn't sure i believed them. what i found when i was there and what i'm sure is still the case is an extremely careful fasted he is i dotting t. crossing perfectly almost to a fault careful process of people who are trying to obey the law and doing the best they can to obey the law. i don't think we need a new church committee today. >> we have a follow-up. on a related matter is there a need for a drum court and could the drone court in the fisa court be combined?
>> i don't think there is a need for a drone court but i do think there should be published procedures to explain how this works. the reason for -- two reasons that calls for some kind of process here. one, probably the most telling has been the one where drones have been used to kill americans overseas. the simple fact is those americans were enemy actors and we have is the fourth. we fought a bear can spin for the turned against us during periods of war so it's really no different. the problem with the drum is that it is not a discrete weapon unless you have god as we have had a couple of times traveling across the desert and one person
or couple of people there. the problem with the drone is the enemy tends to seek its cover in populated areas and using the drone is very difficult. i think the obama administration has probably been doing a very good job of making sure that they have appropriate procedures for it. i don't know that. i think it's probably true but i think there should be and i see no reason there should not be public procedures to explain to the public into the rest of the world how we are doing it. we do that with their standard rules of engagement now. we tell the rest of the world we think you are going to fire on us we are going to fire first. that's an important thing for people to know and i think we should be doing the same with the drone program. spam going to combine these two excellent questions. the first is that the fisa court operates under congressional authorization are there any questions about its constitutionality and the second question is to whom does an
appeal of the fisa court decision go? one of the constitutional objections to the proposal for special advocate as outlined by marty lederman and steve vladek is it a special advocate as an officer of the united states with the power to appeal fisa court decisions it would be governed by the appointments clause of the constitution and would have to be appointed according to those constitutional requirements. i'm going to give this question i think to you because you have thought carefully about this. should the special advocate have the power to appeal by uzoh -- fisa court appointed squats and more broadly of congress authorizes it either constitutional objections? >> i'm not a constitutional lawyer or scholar but it seems to me that those are concerns that could be resolved easily
with legislation so that's a matter of making the special advocate article iii that would just be stipulated in legislation. i'm not sure that it's been said that the fisa court itself is ultimately unconstitutional and certainly that hasn't been decided but there is no review. one of senator blumenthal's forums would be to provide for some mechanism for an appeal and this would allow the special advocate with eyes towards the constitutionality of the decisions being made there of the threats to rights of ordinary americans ,-com,-com ma and ability to request an appeal not to guarantee an appeal but an ability to request a repeal from the view review court and then the supreme court. i think ultimately we need to ensure that the supreme court
while it's likely already within their purview that there is a more direct path to requesting a review of the decisions being made. >> and excellent response and combat the constitution's center how can a law that congress authorized the unconstitutional congressional laws are all subject to the constitution and it is possible for congress to authorize something that would violate various constitutional provisions. the last question i'm going to give to you alexander joel. [inaudible] >> the law itself consists of different titles so the entire statute is not up for reauthorization. it's only certain parts of it so i think the question probably goes towards the 215 patriot act reauthorization which is the bulk collection metadata program. i believe that is probably what the question is about.
people may recall the president gave a very good speech and i won't characterize the speech from your perspective but i thought it was a very good speech on january 17 where he addressed a lot of these issues about how to balance privacy and national security and in that speech he directed a transition from the two and hundred and 15 metadata program as it was currently being carried out as it was then currently being carried out. he directed some immediate changes. one of them was that each individual term, each individual telephone number being used to query the metadata base would have to be individually approved by the foreign intelligence surveillance court and that has now been approved by the court. that is a change that has been implemented. he also directed the attorney general and the director of national intelligence to carry out a review and to propose to him options very soon before the
end of this month on how to carry out this program with the data not being held by an essay in its current incarnation of the program. so that is underway right now. >> ladies and gentlemen justice center has started us off with a really the spot inspire you speech about this crucial issue. you have just heard an extraordinarily thoughtful discussion. please join me in thanking our panelists. [applause]
>> we have to remember two things i think. first we are there because we were attacked in new york city and 3000 americans were murdered. that is why we went to afghanistan to get those people who were killing us and second president obama has said there's a limit to this. within two years we are not going there anymore so i agree with you julie at some point you have to let that go. but in our first goal if we get away from the afghans etc. and look at what our first goal was if i had told you or any of the
listeners in 2001 that we would not be attacked again in the united states of america for the next decade, none of us would have believed that because at that point al qaeda had more of the advantage. now we really have al qaeda and the terrorists definitely on the defensive, so we can at this point get out most of our forces from afghanistan. so i agree with you but we have been successful in what we really want to do in this country and that is to protect ourselves. next hearing on president obama's 2015 budget request for drug control policy. the acting director of the white house drug policy office michael
botticelli testified before house panel about drug use and public health. >> the subcommittee will come to order. i want to welcome our witness acting director botticelli. this is the first time he has appeared before the appropriations committee and i appreciate you coming here to testify. thank you for your service. the office of national drug control policy is charged with the extremely difficult task of coordinating also both federal agencies efforts to address many different drug-related issues at home and abroad. in addition you administer some of the very effective drug invention and enforcement grant programs and today the committee will examine the office of national drug control policies in fiscal year 2015 budget
request along with your efforts to develop and coordinate our nation's drug policies. the budget request submitted by the president has interesting priorities within the subcommittee's jurisdiction. while the best ration is requesting an increase of over $1 billion for the iraq's an increase of over $500 million for the gsa the best ration is recommended to decrease below that of fiscal year 14 for the high intensity drug trafficking areas program and the drug-free communities program. the both of these drug prevention programs are to mobilize communities and increase collaboration among community law enforcement and i can say specifically they have a really good impact in my district in jacksonville florida. i would typically applaud proposed reductions in federal spending but it makes me wonder
why these drug revenge and enforcement programs are being reduced because recently the attorney general announced that heroin overdoses rac said quote and urging and growing public health crisis and quote. marijuana use is -- by the criminalizing recreational marijuana and are nation's problem with cocaine and prescription drugs certainly hasn't gone down either. i find it a little hard to believe that the ministers and feels efforts keep drugs away from our children and out of our communities should be reduced while proposing increases for the bureaucracy of the irs in deciding to build new federal buildings. as the agency is charged with developing nations drug policies you have the difficult assignment of ensuring that not only the department of state, the department of defense, the department justice and the
department of homeland security and health and human services and numerous other agencies are all working in a coordinated manner to address our highest priority drug concerns. i look forward to your testimony today on how the office of national drug control policy is leading this efforts on this coordinator role. more specifically we have heard concerns that the food and drug administration doesn't always take law in force and concerns with prescription drug abuse into account when approving new prescription pain medications. we have also heard concerns the reductions in military spending could significantly reduce counternarcotic goodies in my america and that increases the availability of illegal drugs to the united states. i hope he and your testimony what you all are doing about some of these major concerns. our nation continues to fight a drug problem that takes lives, brings about violence and harms our communities and families and i know you and your staff are
working hard to keep our country safe and healthy. once again acting director sub for welcome and i look forward to your testimony. i will turn the microphone over to my colleague ranking member serrano. >> thank you mr. chairman. i also would like to join you in a welcoming the director of the national drug control program michael botticelli. the office of national drug control policy's mission is placed at the forefront of federal drug policy at the intersection of federal agencies such as the department justice transportation state and the treasury. fiscal year 2015 budget request for ondcp is approximately $311 million, a decrease of $55 million from the fiscal year 14 funding level. this will hopefully be targeted towards improved coordination
and oversight of the jug control programs and policies, something i continue to be concerned about with regards to the agency. this issue is particular relevant in light of the attorney general eric holder's recent proposal for reduced drug sentencing. i hope we will be able to discuss this issue so i can better understand your role in these efforts and learn what you are doing to reform some of our criminal justice policies with regard to drugs. i also continue to be interested in the development of the caribbean border counternarcotic strategy. fiscal year 2014 appropriations act included an act requiring your agency to develop a conference if drug strategy just as you have done for other u.s. borders. i believe this is not only an issue if parity but extremely critical because of increased drug trafficking in the region. it is essential that puerto rico
in the virgin islands are integrated into federal counternarcotic strategy. i look forward to discussing these and other issues with you in detail. thank you for your service and for appearing before us today. >> thank you. chairman rogers wanted to be here today but he could not be here and sends his regards. without objection i will make a statement part of the record. now acting director botticelli. i think about arts when i think botticelli. >> so he is an opera singer for the boston red sox. >> anyway if you could keep your remarks to five minutes or so that will give us time for questions in your entire statement will be submitted for the record so mr. botticelli. >> chairman crenshaw ranking member serrano members of the subcommittee as indicated my name is michael sub war.
and acting director of the white house office of national drug control policy. i'm pleased to appear before you today to discuss the administrations fiscal year 2015 budget request for ondcp. part of the executive office of investment. ondcp was created by statute in 1998 and november of 2013 marked our offices 25th anniversary. ondcp establishes policies priorities and objectives for the nations drug control program. the goals of the program marjah coordinate the federal government's efforts to reduce illicit drug use and its consequences including drug manufacturing and trafficking drug-related crime and violence and in drug-related health consequences. to achieve these goals the director of ondcp is charged with producing the administration's national drug control strategy and ensuring executive branch agency drug control budget spending supports the strategy. the strategy first released in 2010 is based upon input from
public health and public safety professionals across the country and on decades of research from the nation's top scientists that demonstrate that addiction is a brain disease one that could be prevented, treated and from which one can recover. ondcp also has the responsibility for working with their national and international partners to develop the national southwest border counternarcotic strategy the national northern border counternarcotic strategy and fy2014 enact a budget contained a directive for ondcp to develop a counternarcotic strategy which is now in process. our nation faces a number of substance abuse challenges. for instance there is an epidemic of opiate drug use in this country. drug over dose deaths surpassed homicides in traffic crashes in the number of injury deaths in america. heroin use remains of relatively the low as compared to other drugs but there has been a truck thing increase in the number of
people using heroin. evidence suggests that some users specifically those with chronic opioid addictions will substitute heroin for prescription opioids since heroin is often cheaper than bush gershon drugs. a recent report from the substance abuse and mental health services administration found while only 3.6% of people who have started using prescription drugs nonmedically ever initiated heroin use in the following five year period. four-fifths of recent heroin initiatives had previously used prescription pain relievers nonmedically. these findings demonstrate the need to take a conference of approach to addressing opioid drugs including more widespread use of miloxone and opioid reverse medications was expanded access to treatment. further multiple studies show young people's attitudes towards marijuana use and nonmedical use of prescription drugs are softening. each day an estimated 4410
people under the age of 18 initiate drug use for the first time. this can have a profound effect in the future since research shows us an earlier person begins to use drugs or more likely they are to develop a substance use disorder. to enable ondcp to establish -- chacon pitched the goals of these and numerous challenges from substance use disorders the president is requesting $311 million for a white 2015. this request represents decrease of $55 million from ondcp .14 budget however it is developed to ensure we have the resources to meet the strategies and goals while reducing spending. ondcp's to request includes funding for two grant programs that support efforts throughout the nation to reduce drug use and its consequences. the drug-free communities are the support program providing
grants to local drug-free community coalitions to prevent and reduce youth substance use. directed by ondcp the partnership with samhsa the program provides, the dfc program provides grants to drug-free coalition's enabling them to increase cooperation among partners and prevent and reduce youth substance abuse. during fy2013 a total of 1643 dfc grants were awarded. the presidents request for dfc grants program is 85.6 million a decrease of 6.3 million for the fy2014 enacted budget. the high intensity drug trafficking areas or hidta program helps improve the efficiency and effectiveness of drug control efforts by facilitating cooperation among federal state local and tribal law enforcement as well as other drug control organizations. the presidents request of 193.4 million for the hidta program is a decrease of 45 and from a white 2014 enacted budget
however this request contains the hidtas program focus in reducing drug trafficking area court functions will be maintained. in addition to ondcp's responsibly to develop and implement a strategy and administer its grantsburg rams the offices responsible for coordinating overseeing and evaluating the effectiveness of the agencies comprising the national drug control program throughout the federal government as well as overseeing the national drug control budget to ensure that drug control funding proposed by this agency is adequate to carry out the strategy. the president's fy2015 national drug control budget request is $25.4 billion government wide. this represents an increase up 158 million over the fy2014 enacted level. reflecting the need to address both public health and public safety the portion of the budget requested for drug treatment and prevention efforts, 43% ascribed
to its highest level in over 23 years. like like to thank you for the opportunity to testify and am happy to answer any questions that you might have. >> thank you very much. let me start by asking, you mentioned hyde which will be reduced by $45 million i mentioned in my opening remarks that it seems like kind of a strange sense of priorities when you ask for a billion dollars or the irs than half a billion dollars to the general service administration and yet the last couple of years the funding for hidta has been reduced in the proposed budget but congress each year has restored that funding. and again in today's world when states are legalizing marijuana and poppy production is up in afghanistan in cocaine and heroin use all adds up, what do
you think the impact would he if you were to reduce it by $45 million? >> clearly chairman the hidta program is essential both that at the federal state and local level in terms of enhancing efficiency and information-sharing among law enforcement and disease. we consider it an incredibly valuable program. our challenge was with restrained resources making sure that we maintain core functions and services with our hidta program so to that extent this will not result in any elimination of any of our hidta programs. it will maintain its core mission and functions. the biggest i think impact will be on hidta's ability to -- it will preserve the court functions and our core hidta infrastructure. speak in your opinion it's still
effective the things you're doing. it's just a matter of not as much money to go around but as you know the last couple of years congress restore that funding so you wouldn't be upset if that happened again? >> be a say in our hidta program is incredibly valuable and over the past year one of the things that i've seen with their hidta programs is their ability to be flexible at the state and local level in terms of responding to local threats and local emergencies. >> another question just briefly you have this drug-free community program and i think there are 600 coalitions across the united states. they work on mobilizing communities and increase collaboration and things like that. how do you measure the progress that is being made by those groups to receive your funds? how do you go about deciding who receives it and who is effective? >> one of the things we know his
local drug use patterns are different among localities and what it requires to reduce subsidies as a local level is looking at those community factors but also committing stakeholders law enforcement schools to really look at implementing evidence-based prevention programs at the local level. as you indicated for fy14 we are estimating we are going to have 672 of those local coalitions. they have been nationally evaluated and it's been shown that those communities that have drug-free community programs are able to substantially reduce drug use in their community. these are programs that are implementing evidence-based prevention programs and nationallnationall y evaluated and have been shown to reduce substance abuse at the local level. >> those funds are being reduced and proposed to be reduced. how would that impact your
ability? would you get less grants are with the grants these smaller? how would you handle that reduction? >> at this point it doesn't mean that be would take back any existing grants. those grants would -- what would mean is we would be a will to award 50 less grants in fy15 compared to what we are estimating for fy2014. >> how much do you think it would take to continue the fund number of grants that you have funded in the past? >> in terms of looking at level funding for fy14 that is approximately $92 million for the program and its $92 million. >> thank you. mr. serrano. >> thank you mr. chairman. that was going to be my first question also. i don't know if you got the number the same way as i see it. not you but mr. botticelli.
he said 672. that is what it does now. it will be reduced to 614. is that correct? >> that's correct. >> are you hoping by spreading the money around more? that is our program the seems to be working so we wonder why the administration would want to propose a cut? i think you are hearing and i may be wrong some things you usually don't hear and that is asking a question how can you continue to function at a level that does credit to a program that obviously works and has the support of many members of this committee? >> clearly our drug-free communities program is one of the backbones of our prevention infrastructure in the united states and an incredibly valuable program to us. obviously we have to look at how we'll restrain spending and fy
2015. the proposal is enacted we wouldn't eliminate any of the existing grantees. we would just have 50 less new grants in fy15. >> so you don't think it will be a result of reducing from 672 to 614? it would be a reduction to 614 or not? >> would be an overall reduction but that doesn't mean we would eliminate existing grantees. it just means we would have less money that we would be able to work 50 less new grants in fy2015. >> okay. let me ask you about the caribbean order counternarcotic strategy. that was as you mention language that was put in the bill at the request of many of us including the resident commissioner from
puerto rico mr. diaz-balart. this issue speaks to two situations and a lot of florida members can speak to it and that is first the territories get less attention than the states but most importantly in this case we are shooting ourselves in the foot by allowing one border if you will to be totally open and not only to enter the territory but then to make it to the mainland as we say. it's both setting this one up and i would like to hear your thoughts on that quick way that would reset up, setting it up not only helps those territory territory -- helps those territories from the drugs not coming into their area but it helps the states especially florida with the drugs coming into the states. >> clearly our ability to interdict drugs particularly in the caribbean is core to the strategy is indicated. the more drugs we can intercept
and interdict the less we have coming into our local communities. clearly having a caribbean strategy i think that supports the work that we are trying to do domestically is particularly important. we have made progress in terms of the development of that caribbean strategy so we have already convened meetings across our interagency looking at how each of our relevant and federal interagency partners can support the priority action items of the caribbean strategy. we continue to work with them so that strategy is in progress and we hope to have that to you shortly. >> i hope so and mr. chairman i just want to make a statement for the record and that is something i have said over and over and over again in my 24 years of congress. anytime drugs enter one of our territories it has an effect on the united states. if it enters any territory under
the american flag it enters the united states and should be fought the same way it is fought in every state. i want to thank you for your replies. >> thank you nasa's handed a note. our staff will be meeting with your staff on friday to be updating you on a progress strategy. >> thank you. mr. womack. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you mr. botticelli for your testimony. i want to confine my remarks initially and my questions on the lead because there's certainly been a lot of discussion about it from the medical side of the equation to just be out right legalization for recreational use. i have my own hard-core philosophical objections to what's going on around our country. my question is as far as the
ondcp is concerned help me understand what involvement your office has had with states like colorado that had gone in this direction in helping educate people on what the true effects of this increased use happens to be? >> i think you know that the office of national drug control policy and the administration has remained opposed to drug legalization and i think we come at this from a public-health standpoint particularly as it relates to what we think the impact will be on our youth preview have raised i think are important concerns. we now have more twelfth-graders using marijuana that are smoking cigarettes and their perception is the lowest level since the 1970s. we know generally when youth perceive something as less risky
they are more likely to try a substance. clearly we have concerns in terms of what the impact will be particularly in colorado. not only that but what is the message nationally in terms of the use of marijuana. we have been engaged following on the department of justice criteria with colorado and washington as well as with our federal partners to monitor the public safety and public health impact that legalization will have in colorado and washington in terms of the transportation of marijuana from one state to another. are we going to see increased use among youth? we have been engaged with governors offices in both colorado and watching 10 as well as the health departments in colorado and washington to basically see how they are going to implement regulatory schemes to ensure they are doing everything possible to mitigate the public safety and public
health impact of legalization efforts. >> so you have weighed in. your office has help to try to educate the country on this particular subject. do you anticipate that there might be eight bigger or higher response, a larger response or weighted response toward what we see going on around the country? >> i think what we have generally tried to do with our exists in resources that we have within our drug-free communities and other resources to how do we continue to highlight prevention efforts particularly as it relates to things like alcohol and marijuana and a drug-free communities have been important resources that we have had to heighten the prevents and -- or offensive messaging that we need to counteract some of the messages that youth are getting in terms of the perceived safety if you will of marijuana. >> there is no way we can put a
crystal ball in front of you to look into the future. if there was a crystal ball in front of you do you anticipate having to reach back to say colorado is as an example since we have already mentioned it and have one of these i told you so moment's? >> what the department of justice has laid out in terms of their federal law enforcement priorities was a clear indication that they reserve the right to take subsequent action of colorado and washington haven't demonstrated their ability to meet those criteria as it relates to public health and public safety. i think we have as a public health person i think we have every reason to think that we are going to see problems in colorado and washington and again usually science suggests that is youth see something as less harmful that there will be a correlational increase in terms of their use and i think that is what we are seeing nationally. i do think we have some concerns
both in terms of colorado nationally in terms of looking at the data we have now but also what that means going forward. >> finally mr. chairman you know a subject that is near and dear to my heart that we have talked about in previous hearings. i've experienced this in my own family. i'm not a subject madder expert by any means but i'm apparent and now a grandparent and it scares me. the message that we are sending to future generations out here and i'm not saying the office you are sitting in. i'm saying the message the country is sending that some of these things that we know with empirical data are putting our kids on a bad path that we are now saying it's really okay. look at what's going on in colorado and washington. legalization. we are basically promoting
almost buy in some categories we are almost promoting the fact that this is something you can do without any known consequences down the road. i am deeply worried about that as a parent in now is a grandparent and certainly as a member of congress whose job it is to look out for the welfare of this country. it doesn't require a response. i just wanted to save that and let you know that it has my attention and i yield back my time. >> thank you. mr. diaz-balart. >> thank you very much chairman and thank you for being here sir you were very clear about your statement about your concerns the use and the expanding use of marijuana and going to the statement that my colleague just mentioned that makes message by the way is not only hurting the country but it has hurt our
allies. i get it all the time when i travel abroad to latin america. our allies putting out resources and blood to try to stop drug production. there is this kind of a mixed message and so your message today was very clear. let me ask a simple question. isn't marijuana outlawed by federal law? i mean i think it is. >> correct. >> here is the question. have you asked the attorney general or the president to just enforce the federal law? in other words i understand you have serious concerns. your job is to protect people from drugs including nero wanted that you have serious concerns about. have you asked the administration to enforce federal law? if it is so problematic which you have said it is and we all have our opinions on that but clearly you are an expert on
this and you speak for the administration on this. have you asked the president to enforce federal law? have you asked the attorney general synopsis of back and wait to see what happened in colorado to enforce current federal law? >> i think what the department of justice has stated is given limited federal law enforcement priorities they are going to reserve their federal law enforcement actions at the most significant crimes associated with marijuana and not go after people who are using it for personal use. again i think they have reserve the right to go back. >> have you asked? have you asked the attorney general or the president. this is an important issue and you see it as a health hazard. you see it as a problem and you mentioned clearly we are spending a lot of money as we should to try to make sure the kids don't smoke tobacco. i do want my kids smoking tobacco. and yet have you asked, has that
been one of your priorities? said he said to the attorney general and the president i think this is dangerous and i think it's harmful and i think we should enforce federal law? >> during the course of the development process we have had the opportunity to talk to the department justice. what we have agreed to going forward is given with the department of justice has issued an engagement with the department of justice to monitor the day that the federal local and state levels to see what the impact of this and get give that information to the department of justice with her opportunity to look at taking subsidy and actions should be see enhanced public safety and hoblick health effects is a relates to colorado and washington. >> so is kind of in and around question and i'm not going to further press you because i don't want to put you at odds with the administration whoever seems to me part of this message is coming frankly not from you sir but from the administration. we have you saying this is a bad deal and this is bad for public
policy and public health and you frankly have the attorney general and other saying we are going to monitor and see how it goes. i heard the president say it's probably not healthy and is probably not bad. i am paraphrasing and it's not a direct quote. those of the mixed messages our allies are complaining about that we are getting mixed messages to our allies in mixed messages i think to the american people. i would like for one to ask what is the policy, what is our policy? is marijuana illegal? is it harmful and if it is what serious concrete steps and to the point where we should continue to press our allies around the world to do what they are doing in this very painful battle against it and if not which of the policy be? i think that makes message is something i hope you all take back and realize that is there not only for the american people but for allies.
the second if i have any time mr. chairman going back to mr. surana's question and i commend him for always bringing that up. recently for example i mentioned how our allies are confused at best as to mixed messages coming from the administration and from the states and the country. then you have others who have the head of the ecuadorian government that is kicked out the dea out of the country in bolivia morales set their country is better off without the dea. general kelly who is commander of southcom located in the district i represent he recently testified in front of the senate armed services committee and he was very blunt that he believes we are currently only stopping and i know mr. serrano this is not going to shock him but it won't please him, only 20% of
the drugs are trafficked into the united states. it's an issue there of resources how much coordination -- do you have coordination with southcom and his bars the budgetary aspect how much coordination is there and are you consulted at all? what is that role? >> as part of our statutory authority in terms of looking at the totality of the drug control budget clearly we are with dod the coast guard and others in terms of our interdiction and our ongoing supply strategy. i had the opportunity to go to southcom and talk to general kelly and see some of the work he is doing in here his concerns. this is obviously again interdiction is part of part core strategy and we consider it very important. there has been a significant amount of discussion both with general kelly as well as the interdiction community through
our interdiction committee worked to look at available resources to look at operational efficiencies that we can achieve in terms of meeting our goals of interdicting as many drugs as possible. clearly we have taken a leading role with the military and their interagency partners to look at in light of the fiscal issues we have here how do we continue to meet our goals around supply reduction in interdiction? >> that is one where we get a big bang for buck. >> i agreed i think when we see large-scale removal of drugs that don't come into our country we know again from a prevention perspective the more drugs that are available the more likely people are likely to use them. clearly these are complementary strategies both in terms of supply and demand reduction so they are important goals. >> thank you mr. chairman for allowing me and briefly also director again that mixed
message is really intense in its real deep. i don't want to bust your chops but i think you have been clear about the effects and what your concerns are on the other side and the other side with the same administration. there is a lack of willingness to enforce current enteral law. if the federal law is wrong and if marijuana is not a big deal then we should have that discussion in the president should be upfront and say let's debate that the right now we are getting mixed messages. i think our allies here that and those fighting trafficking of drugs are hearing that and our kids are hearing it and i think that's most dangerous parts. >> to be fair the present and department of justice have indicated their concern around the public health impact so we have to clarify law enforcement versus public health and public safety but thank you for your comments.
>> thank you. >> mr. graves. >> mr. director thanks for being here and thank you for what you do. i can imagine the burden that you carry each day on your shoulders. it's a very noble cause and i know we have our questions and concerns. i never intend to speak on the topic that the gentleman before me had but i was shocked at the statistic you shared momentarily in your statement and he said it here as well the more twelfth-graders today smoke marijuana than cigarettes and i think we are all shocked to hear that. and i heard about mixed messages and you suggesting that it's because they sense marijuana has less consequences, fewer consequences than cigarettes. it was less than 60 days ago the president sent confusing messages to the youth across the country and his quote was well-documented and he then says i smoked pot as a kid.
i view it as a bad habit and a feiss not different from cigarettes that i smoked as a young person but through a big chunk of my adult life. this was in "the new yorker" and he thought he would stop there but then he said i don't think it's more dangerous than alcohol i mean that probably bothered you i would imagine because i know you take your job seriously. does that make your job easier or more difficult and was there some sort of internal frustration to go into the president's office and say what are you doing here? you are a few my job extremely more difficult and challenging? what was your response to that? >> if you look at the totality of the subsequent comments that the president made a lot of what he was referring to where the inequities in disparities we see from erdogan a particularly among people of color which is an issue obviously not for our office but for him and the attorney general's office as well.
i think the president has repeatedly --. >> you suspect that so the youth has interpreted his comments? the youth of our country i think they probably heard i don't think where one is more dangerous than alcohol and almost in kind of an odd statement as such. >> again i go back to looking at some comments that he made subsequent to those in terms of understanding the significant public health consequences both for alcohol and marijuana and not necessarily endorsing what was happening in colorado and washington and saying we really have to be vigilant in terms of keeping this is a public health priority. >> i don't mean to interrupt but i took it as a little flippant and off-the-cuff and maybe was caught off guard with that question. he is the present of united states and i know he gets difficult questions all the time this one couldn't have been all
that difficult but has he since then come forward with remorse and said i made a mistake? i shouldn't have done that as a youth and as all of us at some point have done things that we regret has he ever expressed regret for that or did he just allow the comments to hang and dangle? >> i think he made subsequent comments after their relative to understanding that this was a significant public health and public safety issue. the present is not like many other parents who use substances in their gift to great regret. the best thing we can do is be honest and candid and say we don't support that for our kids as he talked about in not supporting it for his daughters. i think if you look at successful prevention strategies we need to have these conversations as parents and we need to say do our kids look i may have done this and i may have done okay but i don't advise it for my kids. >> i appreciate his candidness
and such and i hope he has taken a statement in suggesting his regret in not encouraging others to do that and not a statement in i did that the book at what i've accomplished in life. if i could change gears i met with sheriffs last week while i was in the district and we were talking about methamphetamine. obviously it's a difficult problem in our region in northwest georgia. they were suggesting with all the steps we have taken to prevent it that things have changed and the ingredieningredien ts are changing. obviously others are finding easier ways to do it but there is still that lingering problem with drugs coming across the southern border. do you sense that our border security is adequate when it comes to not only illegal immigration perspective and i will ask you to speak on that part rum a legal job perspective crossing our borders?
is it adequate and what more can be done? >> i think you raise to critical issues, one in terms of drugs coming in from mexico and domestic production as well as domestic use. i think we have significantly enhanced the resources at the border. part of our concern has been both good and bad in the sense that they have been able to actually sees a tremendous amount of drugs at the border. unfortunately we have seen a 500% increase in methamphetamine seizures at the border and i think you're absolutely right that is mexico has changed in terms of looking at putting controls on precursor chemicals as they combat acts that states have enacted we have seen different patterns emerging in terms of production internationally as well as domestically. previously where we saw large
labs and indicted states are law has made it harder to make chemicals and we have seen the increase in terms of the small one pot labs particularly in the district. it has been clear that this is a public safety and public health issue that we have too look at. one of the areas we are examining is we have made good progress over the past years in terms of the reduction in methamphetamine use in the united states largely there are prevention and local law enforcement efforts. so we do have a number of programs through our office that help support reducing the distribution and trafficking largely through a component of our hidta programs as well as her drug-free communities. that is an issue that we have to continue to look at both internationally in terms of what we seized from the borders but also work on domestic reduction in domestic trafficking as well
as reducing demand for methamphetamine here in the states. >> inodes outside of your scope but from the drug trafficking across the border are you suggesting is adequate protections are in place or is there more that can be done and do you have any thoughts on that? ultimately it impacts your role. >> we have done a significant job in terms of looking at increasing our technology and increasing our information-sharing as well as increasing some of our prevention efforts on both sides of the border. i think we have done a really good job in terms of looking at that. there is always more work to be done. my former bosses now the commissioner of customs and border protection so i'm sure that we'll have a good relationship in terms of customs and border control particularly as it relates to our southwest border. >> i share your concerns as well as they think everybody on the subcommittee probably is concerned about marijuana to hear the things that you have mentioned but i guess the good news is we can refer everyone to
governor jerry brownout in california who i think said it very succinct way when he said it's hard to have a great state or a great nation when you have too many people getting stoned would surprise me to hear him say that. but that is the other side of the coin that probably people need to talk about. he talked about you shouldn't have too many potheads so he is trying to spread the message i guess from the other side of the coin. we have time for a couple more questions that members have but i want to ask you on the international scale and then more domestic that people have talked about latin america, the caribbean and the fact that 75% of everything comes through on the other side of the world the place called afghanistan where they grow poppies. the first time i went to afghanistan there was all this conversation about how are we going to get people to quit
growing poppies and grow something else? i kind of died down and there was a lot of discussion about that. i was there six weeks ago in the military was talking about all the great things that have happened in afghanistan in terms of education in universities being created and women's rights and women's voting. he didn't talk much about the poppy situation and as we prepared for this hearing it was called to my attention that the poppy production is just ever-increasing and now it's 5% of gdp. i'm wondering do you see the impact of drugs whether from latin america and a caribbean or afghanistan when it hit the ground here the terrible impact they have. do you work with them and are those things that are still being talked about in terms of maybe how you slow down that production there are and e.u. court made with the department of defense? can you touch it all on the whole poppy situation? >> clearly the situation in terms of poppy cultivation has
been a significant concern and we have seen year after year increase in terms of poppy cultivation. it has significant concern in terms of what that might mean. we are not seeing widespread heroin trafficking of heroin from afghanistan but clearly as a relates to instability in the country and the money it facilitates is a particular problem. we work with the department of defense as well as the department of state in terms of looking at how do we continue to aid counternarcotics efforts in afghanistan. clearly the next few months in terms of the election there are as well as kind of what are the resources after troop pullout is a particular concern in terms of looking at those issues of both poppy eradication as well as alternative development to take
the place of those poppies. that said it doesn't diminish in terms of what we are anticipating for our counternarcotics efforts. we are looking to continue priorities that provide training and technical assistance to the counternarcotics police of afghanistan as well as vetted units within the afghan drug law enforcement as well as investing in sustainability and capacity building with the administrative counternarcotics. these are efforts in the international law enforcement division. clearly this is a significant concern for us now and going forward. >> thank you and now let me ask you about a more domestic problem and that is methamphetamine. as i understand it's very addictive, it's cheap and is kind of becoming the drug of choice. maybe you could tell us what you see the trends are in terms of
use and abuse of that, talk about what you all are doing to try to counter the production and the use of that and then do you need anything more in terms of tools that you can use because as i understand that is one of the more serious things we are facing today. >> thank you and i appreciate the offer. as i indicated we have seen significant increases in seizures of methamphetamine at our southern border as well as an increase in domestic production. some of the programs we have from law enforcement that we have talked about through our high intensity drug trafficking. we also have a national program under haida program and that is the national methamphetamine and pharmaceutical initiatives. that provides regional support to where haida to look at how do we diminish drug trafficking and production issues particularly for methamphetamine. again on the prevention side we
see a friday of resources in our drug-free communities to look at doing that. having had a subsequent conversation with you in terms of what additional things might we have in place beyond that might hold promise in terms of reducing the availability of some of the precursor chemicals that go into methamphetamine production as congressman graves pointed out. as we have made changes at the federal and state level there has been an evolution in chemicals in production that warrant additional consideration in terms of how do we continue to do everything we can from both supply reduction in demand reduction standpoint to reduce those issues. i also think too that when we look at methamphetamine we have some significant parts of the country that are more affected than others. speedo is going to ask you about that. these meth labs that you read about the coming go, where are
they going and where they concentrated two-day? >> the biggest impact we see in terms of methamphetamine and this is not to say we don't see it in rural pockets around other areas but when you look at the regional impact i think that is particularly in the south and the west is where we see significant impact from methamphetamine. i came from the northeast where we had a big heroin problem and very little math problem so we have different parts of the country that it differentially impacted by methamphetamine in terms of production and use. >> is it hard to set up a meth lab? ugoda columbia and see you have the jungle and cocaine. is it something that someone can set up to make math and if someone comes they can go somewhere else? how complicated is a? >> in fair disclosure i'm not fluent other than marching
breaking bad. i really know t y technical capabilities. my understanding is it not prempr tremendously complicated. that's why we're seeing the one pot labs in terms of chemicals available as well as process. people doing production are not necessarily tremendously skilled at it. think we see some devastating environmental impact. drug endangered children. as it erelates to it. i don't think that it's technically tremendously difficult to do. again, i think as we have put certain controls on certain of the chemicals, precursors that we've seen evolution in terms of -- >> is it -- would you say is it the fastest growing -- i mean it used to be crack cocaine. how does meth rank in terms of abuse and potential for abuse? because i always understood it was just so cheap and so
available that it was one of the fastest growing problems you're facing. >> i think, you know, one of the things -- again, i think we have to continue to monitor the imct othe pr what we have seen over the last couple of years is a reduction in meth use and again that is differential in different parts of the country but we have seen some declined in methamphetamine use. i think we would be lullabies in terms of looking at both the production and the interdiction around our meth use as well as early indications we are seeing more emergency department mentions for methamphetamine. i think we have to pay close attention on both the regional and national level in terms of those issues. one of the issues we talked about before in terms of magnitude of borders and the prescription drug abuse and opiate epidemic we are seeing nationally. that is clearly an issue that is a high priority as well as continuing to monitor what's happening with other drug use trends.
>> mr. serrano. >> either you are asking my questions or he is it answering my questions before i asked them. >> i hope it's the latter. >> it's boat trader wanted to talk to you about the prescription drug abuse. what do you specifically propose to do to reduce the use of prescription drugs and also how have past efforts, what have they shown and how do we integrate them into what we want to do now and lastly i know we have 49 states that have prescription drug monitoring programs. are they all functioning of or just some of them? >> in 2011 a win dcp coordinated an interagency effort among our federal partners and released a plan to reduce prescription drug abuse and that has four main pillars. one is education.
educating prescribers and what we have seen is the number of prescriptions painkillers has increased so has the consequence of doing that. it entails proper monitoring as you alluded alluded to and make sure we have good monitoring programs. it requires and focuses on safe disposal. one of the things that we see as particularly for occasional users about 70% of people who use those medications occasionally are getting them free from friends and family so how do we get those drugs out of the supply chain so we are working on safe disposal. the last point is around good laws to make sure that we are eliminating pill mills and doctor shopping. issue talked about one of the central components of what we have from proposing is making sure we have good monitoring programs. we have 49 states that now have prescription drug monitoring programs and have been working
to make sure that all of them are implementing best practices in terms of those. i think there is probably no better example than what happened in florida. the congressman and i were talking about this in terms of implementing strong prescription drug monitoring programs and enacting strong legislation. what we have seen in sport is a significant decrease in the number of prescription painkillers and most importantly a significant reduction in drug overdose deaths associated with those. clearly having vibrant programs are important to us as well as having programs to share information across the borders to make sure as florida implements good and sound policies that people are not just moving to georgia to focus on it. it has clearly been one of the top priorities of our office in terms of his whole of government effort across our federal partners to minimize the impact of prescription drug abuse. >> i should tell you that on
social media this afternoon after announcing that i would be attending this hearing the number one question asked by six or seven people which is usually an indication of many others was a question about the overdose issue. and so with that in mind just for clarification when we talk about prescription drug abuse are we talking about all prescription drugs or are we basically saying that the problem is painkillers? >> we are chiefly talking about prescription made -- pain medication. >> people who are on for instance cholesterol medication or high blood pressure medicine they are on it for the rest of their lives. >> i think the concern is particularly for sessions get. little training with these powerful pain medications as well as training on how to identify substance use disorders
and their population. that is why mandatorily prescribing for physicians is really important to the work that we do. .. in 2010 we had over 16,600 prescription pain related overdose deaths in the united states. that's 100 people a day who are dying from prescription pain medication overdoses. and our office has been working with federal, state and local folks to implement naloxzone description programs. naloxone is a safe, effective, nontoxic substance that emergency responders have been using for cades red >> we have been very hard and in terms of the number of states that have enacted this distribution program route the country. it's really remarkable.
it's a really miraculous drug in terms of its ability to save lives. >> let me ask you one more question. and then if we don't have another round, we will cement a couple of questions for the record. you know, we don't have diplomatic relations with cuba. but in the past we have done immigration work ongoing and transportation issues in terms of airplanes flying over, certain part. we have done hurricane issues and preventing sinnott means or wanting of them and so on. do we have any kind of relationship when it comes to a these issues? >> to my knowledge, i don't think we have any ongoing discussions we have to let them
stop that from happening. i said i was shocked because basically agents from this country or any kind of agents, they gave us quite a statement. i know it's not in their best interest to having this go in and out of cuba. >> we have to distinguish what has happened. and it would be of benefit to this country. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> your predecessor was confirmed at the cdp earlier this month. >> correct. >> you have been in your current capacity as acting director.
>> yes. >> is it fair to say that you didn't have a lot of input with the president face to face on this particular budget? >> you know, clearly we work through this. >> you personally were not face-to-face with the president on this but it? >> correct. >> have you been invited into the white house, into the oval office to talk about the growing problems with substance abuse and the effects, the cascading effects. >> i'm talking about specifically the president. >> i have not, sir maccabee been invited? >> i have not.
311 million is the president's budget for your office. down from 370, 360. was it 55 million? with that the difference? >> correct. and do you think that that is an adequate reflection of the importance of your office? given the fact that you are taking the better part of the 20% cut in the president's proposed budget, do you think that is a reflection of the priorities? >> not just looking at our budget or the totality of it and
this is important in terms of the overall control of the budget. that we have seen a significant increase and the entire control of the budget, it is a party with an administration. >> a drug overdose deaths now are greater than motor vehicle crashes. greater than gunshot wounds. and so pertaining to the latter,
i have sat in a lot of meetings including the state of the union address where the president talks about pulling out his phone or his pen to do things that congress is unwilling to do. especially with an immediate desire about gun violence and there is this particular budget and the number is greater than gunshot wounds. so where this fits as it concerns the administration i'm
going to give you a break. you've been there tends to thousand 12, but when you want to say to the president when you have that face-to-face meeting on the policies of this administration is a concern, something that now outnumbers drug overdoses and gunshot victims. >> i think again when you look at some of the new additions in the proposed budget items, but there are some additional items in that budget there are specifically on these epidemics. as it relates to this.
clearly been a priority of our office in terms of promoting the overdose education. we worked with a number of federal partners and nongovernmental partners in terms of continuing to raise awareness around the magnitude of these issues. so again i think that one of the areas that we see that leads to overdose is untreated addiction. one of the biggest causes of why people don't get treatment is a lack of insurance in one of the things that the informal care contains a provision to make sure that ensures have to include a benefit for substance abuse disorder treatment and that is reflect that in the president's budget. and i think the we see some promising proposals.
>> we would be remiss without chairman rogers. he was so aggressive about the pill mills and we have a huge issue and we have seen some good results of that. and i know that our attorney general in the state of florida has been very aggressive in is the only a lot has changed, and trying to update that legislation. and on the second question, let me just go through that.
>> that has been significant concern we are taking these chemical substances and they are certainly not having a consistency in terms of products and user. we have seen some significant issues around those areas. until it's been an issue that we've been trying to focus on. clearly we have been working with our partners in the dea in terms of how to stay on top of scheduling some of these substances. and we have been working with
the d.a. and with the office in terms of are there things that we can continue to do to stay ahead of some of these scheduling issues as it relates to some of these synthetic drugs. we have also seen and have been having conversations as states and governments reduce the sale of these with a larger role in terms of where people are getting their substances from. and here we are willing to work with them. we are continuing to look at this in terms of priorities and how we can continue to stay on top of these issues.
>> there is a quickness of dealing with things. so how good is your cooperation with the state's? is the is kind of a general question and i'm sure it's somewhat better than others. >> of our components as our office of state and local and tribal affairs and they work closely with our state counterpart in terms of law enforcement and public health. and we have a lot of work and sharing the practices among the state. so i think it we have a good relationship with many of our state counterpart. >> you've been very patient and i will be quick on this one. going back to the issue of how the attorney general, what is going on, is there a formal monitoring ory metrics or a system set up so that they can look at this and compare the
data, or isn't and a formal data? that it's something that said that the metrics, i'd be interested to see it and also how long it will be in et exeter. what can you tell me about that? >> our office to believe in this as they laid out. and they looked at what our data sources. most of these are publicly available data sources that speak to things like the version to use and treatment admissions in things like drunk driving arrest and we will continue to monitor whether federal partners those data to look at picture of what happens with colorado and washington. >> thank you. >> i have some questions that i will submit for the record. i know that you do as well. salome just say in closing i
thank you and your staff. we talk about this fight against drugs and then we refer to it often as a war. and we certainly fight in the war. as we all know drugs house such a terrible impact on our country, whether it's destroying lives or breaking up communities and families. we want to work with you to win this war and keep america safe to keep america healthy and we thank you again for being here today and we look forward to working with you. this meeting is adjourned. >> thank you. [inaudible conversations]
>> the senate moved a ukraine eight and russian sanctions motion forward today 78217. we will get an update in a moment and hear from the senators who supported the measure. then connecticut senator richard blumenthal talks about making changes to the fisa court. >> tim starks joins us with details on legislating in the house and senate with aid in the ukraine. what are some of the details of the senate measure? >> this is a procedural vote that needed 60 votes to advance
in the vote was 73 to 18, although i think it was a discussion at some point. it was a bigger margin than we might have expected given that it's controversial with a number of republicans. and i think that everyone knew that it would succeed, but a much bigger margin than i thought it would be. their main things that are really up there at the forefront of what congress is trying to do right now. one is a sanctions piece aiming at russian officials we have decided have suffered some wrongdoing and things like that. another thing is loan guarantees to the ukraine and the congress needs weigh-in on now.
and this allows restructuring at the international monetary fund allows to go forward. >> what is expected to happen at this point in the senate on this bill? >> i was just talking to some senators doctors about that. it's not there what's going to happen. but there is going to be a push and there are some senators who would like to see the united states sent military aid, there are some others who would like to see us speed up the natural gas flow is the ukraine is dependent on its energy supply and there could be trying to strip that imf language out. in which case we have to have another couple procedural votes. >> let's talk about who voted against this and why they voted against it.
>> it would be those that were on the right side of the republican party and he saw members like senator rand paul and those who voted no. some republicans voted yes in part because they just want to get the bill going forward. but some still don't like the language even though he doesn't like this imf version. but they serve a multi-fold reason and it relates to them not being totally comfortable with the imf doing as good a job as they ought to. there are other concerns about things as to what this approval could do to the u.s. budget and there is a trade off earlier this year when the president was pushing this language there are tea party groups in exchange of
going for that imf language. >> on the house side earlier this month to bills were set to provide this and also impose sanctions on iran, but tomorrow they are taking up those issues again in a markup of the new combined legislation. why are they doing this and who are the keys to orders to the bill on the house side? >> it's not a part that anyone disputes. and the piece on sanctions is also not very controversial. this bill that they are doing has a bit more of the sanctions
piece than the others do. the imf language is out of the bill and that was basically saying that you are trying to move this and we don't like it and we're going to keep moving this there's a bit of a standoff going on and it mostly breaks down along the party lines but not entirely. so we won't worry about that later and you see some republicans saying almost the same thing for the opposite reason, saying let's go ahead and vote on this even though we don't like it just to get something so we can help them out. >> sort about the house taking up its version of the bill. >> they will vote tomorrow and it could be something as soon as the end of the week. it is possible that they could work it out where there could be a vote on that second ukraine
bill by the end of the week. >> were is the white house on all of these efforts in congress? >> the white house is in favor of all of this. they have some of this already. they want the imf language in the budget proposal over the last two years and president obama have personally talked about talking about wanting to keep that language in the senate bill to move forward. >> tim starks, you can call him on twitter and you can find is reporting that rollcall.com. >> thank you. >> the senate voted to move ahead with the resolution on the ukrainian and russian sanctions. with a vote of 78217. here's part of the debate from the senate floor on monday. >> the senate. [laughter]
i introduced together with senator durbin. >> that resolution received unanimous support here in the senate and called for a number of specific steps to punish and isolate russia for its actions. among these steps we called upon president obama to impose sanctions on those who are most responsible for the invasion of the crimean region. i'm pleased that recent announcements demonstrate that the president has begun the process of sanctioning some individuals although i hope that the numbers would be far greater. and i also want to note that the president today is in the netherlands discussing the european allies and partners need for are there steps. i trust and hope that he will be successful in reaching the firm
consensus with our allies and friends to define a strong and united response to russian aggression. especially the legislation and the support for the sovereignty and democracy and economic stability of the act of 2014, which i trust and hope the senate will be acting upon beginning this evening. and i would note that time is somewhat of the essence is if we are going to send a message to russia. we don't want to be bogged down in an internal delay over other over slightly related issues. that is why the senator and i moved out provisions simply to make sure that there was the united bipartisan united states senate unanimously approved
agreement on 15 measures that would get the message to vladimir putin and the russians that we do take this very seriously. that legislation that we will be dealing with also sanctions the russians on seville for this reason aggression by producing and prohibiting them from coming to the united states and freezing their assets here in america. a european ally as unlikely as and together we have begun to respond to russia's outrageous behavior. however, it is my strong belief that much more needs to be done. we and our european allies must recognize the enormity of vladimir putin's crime if he rejects all modern standards of responsible international behavior and tramples on the sanctity of the territorial borders to the stability of the
postwar border. the international response must be much more vigorous if we are to prove that his behavior is unacceptable and cannot be repeated. it is the best way to reassure that our allies and then who are precarious we placed upon russia's borders get this outrage, then it must be stopped and reversed and ended. conversely to do little more than prevent a handful of russian officials from traveling abroad to show him and his cronies that in the end we actually do not mean what we say. so again i'd like to say that the international response needs to be and has to be much more vigorous if we are to prove that we stand together and are united in one voice claiming that the
behavior of him is unacceptable and cannot be repeated. when senator durbin i introduced a resolution, we talked about our willingness to work with the administration and craft more punishing sanctions, including economic sanctions possibly targeting the key sectors of the russian economy. and i believe that many of us here in the senate on both types of the aisle want to do more. i suggested a range of things, going at russia's export of oil and gas and their energy play that contributes a significant amount to their economy on which they are very dependent. as well as financial sanctions and others and i hope the president is discussing those measures with our partners as we speak. we are all aware that the
sanctioning keeps russian economic activities and can carry the possibility that our interests and those of our european allies could be affected at the same time. and it is not a reason for inaction and it should not be the basis or standing by and watching what is happening and simply saying that this could potentially affect us economically back at home in their war excuse the actions would probably enable further action by our russian adversary in this case. in the end unpunished and unconstrained and rampant russian territorial expansion will threaten us all to a much greater extent. doing something now could prevent something much worse later. standing up now could prevent
something much more serious in terms of what we might have to do later and sound decisions must reflect the full assessments of all eventual consequences that includes a quick excerpt of what the world will look like with a forceful annexation of a neighbor's territory when it is it more doormat only with a rap on the knuckles. i continue to believe that we can and must do more to isolate russia. this includes, for example, explicitly expelling russia from the g8, not temporarily but explicitly expelling them and ending the nato russia council. and in addition i am proposing a specific economic sanctions that will harm russian interests in a serious way and hopefully with minimal or no damage to our own. i'm introducing an amendment to
the ukraine act in the ukraine bill and i trust people you we will find bipartisan support. the purpose is to sanction russia's export. the sole state agency for the export of russian systems and defense related goods. this is a state corporation supposedly entitled to export the entire range of russian on the men's officially allowed for export. it is set up for that purpose and set up by vladimir putin in a state owned enterprise and its business is sending russian arms around the world. some two very bad actors. many of our colleagues in the senate know of this arms export agency because of russia's continued supply of arms through the sheer mark's regime in
syria. many have repeatedly called upon the administration to stop all of the operation for that reason. we now have a broader reason for ending all cooperation with the export agency of russia. to take steps for the income and provide some with the most effective ways that we have of demonstrating our condemnation of russian action by force of arms. let me explain my amendment. it does three things. first of prohibits the united states government from doing any business with this russian agency by prohibiting future contracts and canceling past contracts. it is true that the recent national defense authorization act also includes similar language but that act includes a